Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Garcia-Emanuel, 10th Cir. (2004)
United States v. Garcia-Emanuel, 10th Cir. (2004)
OCT 20 2004
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 04-5030
(N.D. Okla.)
(D.Ct. No. 90-CR-92-K)
Defendant-Appellant.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
*
motion, in which the district court vacated the conspiracy conviction and
resentenced Mr. Garcia-Emanuel to 240 months imprisonment. United States v.
Garcia-Emanuel, 141 F.3d 1186, 1998 WL 141988 at *2 (March 30, 1998)
(unpublished op.). This court affirmed. Id. at *3. Mr. Garcia-Emanuel then filed
two separate 28 U.S.C. 2255 motions to vacate, set aside, or correct his
sentence, which the district court transferred to this court for consideration as
second or successive motions. This court denied both successive 2255 motions.
minimal participant.
Having reviewed the record and briefs on appeal, we conclude the district
court did not err in construing Mr. Garcia-Emanuels motion to modify his
sentence as one filed under 3582(c), and then denying it. As the district court
aptly explained, post-sentence rehabilitation is not a factor considered under
-4-
3582(c) for the purpose of modifying a sentence, and therefore, the district
court clearly lacked authority to reduce his sentence on that basis. See 18 U.S.C.
3582(c).
had brought such a motion, Mr. Garcia-Emanuel would not have been successful.
Cir. 1998). In this case, under either criteria applied, Mr. Garcia-Emanuels
ineffective assistance of counsel claim must fail. His claim is not subject to
certification because it is not based on newly discovered evidence or a new rule
of constitutional law. Moreover, he has failed to show cause for not raising this
ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his original 2255 motion, and we find
nothing in his brief or the record to suggest that a fundamental miscarriage of
justice will result from a failure to entertain the claim on appeal.
-7-